Lore talk:Falmer

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

I've seen them[edit]

Between Ivorstead and Northwind Summit, I saw a strange door in an unusual place near a waterfall leading to Darkwater Pass[?]. I can't see the text very good, it might be Darkwater Pess or something. Poop 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mod-related Lore question on the Falmer[edit]

I'm thinking of adapting the Elvaan from Final Fantasy XI Online (http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Elvaan) into a race in game and would like to stick as close to lore as possible without either breaking it or my intended race. What are the Lore-based implications of making this race mod and calling them, say, the "Nordic Elves" or something along those lines? Thanks! Davehoekst 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the Dark Elves those who the Falmer breeded with?[edit]

I just realised that when Azura cursed the Chimer making them Dunmer, their skin was supposed to be gray. The Dunmer you encounter are more purple than gray and would that be the result of the blue Falmer breeding with the Dunmer, thus causing their skin to be a lighter shade than that of which they were cursed with. Please say if you see where I am getting at.

No the Falmers skin is blue because of the resistance to frost the blueness being a thin layer of ice. Plus the Dunmer vary from green to brown to the more familiar blue.--Corevette789 12:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides where are you seeing purple-ish Dunmer? Dunmer in Morrowind are gray so are Dunmer in Oblivion.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Glacier Tribes[edit]

The glacier tribes from Dawnstar seem to be similar to the Falmer. They were intelligent enough to plan an attack on the city and seem to have tamed (or allied) with the Gehenoth. Should they be added to the article? Legoless 01:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

picture[edit]

theres a picture of a falmer in skyrim here or should we wait until the games out? (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

There's no copyright info on that picture so we can't just add it. It could be fan art for all I know. rpeh •TCE 09:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That image is from an Oblivion mod. --Legoless 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, now's the time we should start talking about this again. I think the following should be the banner image for this page. I also think that the pixellated, crummy, HUD-filled image currently on the page of what may or may not be a Falmer should be removed entirely, now that we have images that aren't, you know, terrible.
thumb|left|A picture of a Falmer that we actually know is a Falmer and which doesn't totally suck balls
Minor Edits 23:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No reason not to use both. The creatures in Shadowkey were almost certainly Falmer and to ignore them would be silly. For prettiness, sure let's use the SR image as the main one, but the SK image should be kept at least in a gallery. rpeh •TCE 03:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The gallery is fair enough, but there's definitely no reason to highlight the image. The Shadowkey shot has clearly always been a placeholder until something better came along. Minor Edits 10:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Video[edit]

Falmer revealed in this video.--Tovenam 16:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Great video you found, especially since it's official! It has a lot of new footage. Thanks.RIM 16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did not see anything in there that could definitely be a Falmer without the game being released. I saw Spriggans, Storm Atronach, Trolls, Giants, some animal predator, and what look like Goblins. But it never says what anything actually is. --DKong27 Tk Ctr Em 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even notice the part about falmer:), still has a lot of cool things though including centurian spheres, also what is going on at 0.35 seconds?RIM 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't someone going to edit it now that the Falmer are confirmed?

Load screen info[edit]

So you see a bunch of Falmer durring the College of Winterhold questline. A load screen told me that they're blind from living underground for so long, but their other senses are enhanced. They use weapons and armor made of of chitin. The casters use bound weapons and ward spells, the fighters use bows, axes, and swords. They have little huts made out of what apears to be large chitin shells.

Live in Yurts[edit]

In Skyrim they live in yurts, similar to ashland tribes in Morrowind. They also seem to always live underground. The article specifically says their living arrangements are unknown, and should be updated.

Falmer Alphabet page?[edit]

Is there going to be a page for the Falmer alphabet (as there are for the Daedric, Dragon, and Dwemer alphabets) found in Gallus's Encoded Journal?74.215.200.49 03:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually. Minor Edits 06:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Falmer language[edit]

What is the source for the Falmer language called "Falmer"? The given reference Entheris just calls it "the Falmer language", so no name at all there. I'm just asking, because Lore:Ehlnofex_Languages calls it "Falmeris". --Alfwyn 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the edit history of that page, some think the use of the term "Falmeris" is dubious there. Minor Edits 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I don't see a source for "Falmeris" either. Barring any other sources, I'd think we simply don't know the name of the language. Usages like "the Orc language" don't provide a name of the language, but just indicate that it is the language used by the Orcs. --Alfwyn 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A line of player dialogue calls the language "Falmer". It's not Falmeris. --Legoless 00:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Power of the Eyes of the Falmer[edit]

I removed the following from the article:

There has been a theory that the statue could in fact hold the power to restore the Falmer to their original form by using the magical power of the eyes, and the statue, in which the eyes were enchanted with a mystical power harnised from the Snow Prince's body by other Snow Elves, responsible for the Snow Prince's body not being in Jolgeirr Barrow. This power is powerful enough to bring back their true selves, the Snow Elves.

This section was added without a comment, I cannot find any sources for this. Furthermore, according to Bloodmoon:Jolgeirr Barrow, the remains of the Snow Prince were found there, contradicting this section directly. --Alfwyn 11:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Blind rangers?[edit]

That's one thing that always bothered me.. how can a blind race bring forth such good rangers? The Falmer in Skyrim snipe the player for hundreds of yards.. 188.192.188.111 23:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Others[edit]

Now that we've seen both corrupted and uncorrupted living Falmer/Snow Elves, do the pictures of the Snow Warrior, Ice Warrior, and Riekling still belong on this page? At least with the Riekling their role in the Bloodmoon quest In Search of the Falmer might justify them being represented here, but I can't really see a reason for the other two. LoveWaffle 21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree; I think a lot of those images are relics left over from when we knew practically nothing about the Falmer, and the page was in need of images regardless of how speculative their relevance was. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 04:32, 13 September 2012 (GMT)
Moving the Ice Tribes and Ice Warriors to separate pages may be a good idea, as they are never officially connected to the Falmer. However, Wispmothers and Rieklings should stay, since popular myth considers them remnants of the lost race. I'll try to get around to writing articles for the two tribes, but I've kind of given up on maintaining this article after all the contradicting Dawnguard information, so someone else is welcome to try their hand at removing the "blue-skinned humanoids" from the page. —Legoless (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2012 (GMT)

There is a Riekling image in article with description "possibily related to Falmer" and no any another commantaries in article text. I think is needed either remove an image or write the reasons it was added.--193.227.251.76 01:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Split?[edit]

A loading screen in Skyrim says, "The great statue of Irkngthand is the only known visual representation of a Snow Elf, before centuries of subterranean slavery twisted the race into the vile Falmer."

Bethesda has provided a distinction for us between the creatures now called the Falmer and the race known as the Snow Elves. Given how we distinguish between beasts and races of people in the lorespace, I think it would make sense to take Bethesda up on the dichotomy they've presented. We already partially treat the Falmer as a beast race; they have an entry in the Bestiary (which links to this page, a Race page). We could modify this page to consistently recognize them as beasts, and turn the redirect at Lore:Snow Elf into an article focused on the civilized race, while acknowledging on both pages that they were once one and the same, and that the in-game dichotomy is imperfect. But in our UESP articles, we could maintain that dichotomy quite easily, referring to the monsters as the Falmer and the civilized race as the Snow Elves.

At the very least, I think this page needs to do a better job of distinguishing between the civilized race and the Betrayed. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 19:48, 10 October 2012 (GMT)

It might be a good idea to split them. I've already taken the liberty of making a Lore:Ice Tribes page for the oddball TES Travels enemies. This page could potentially be turned into a disambig (linking to Lore:Snow Elves, Lore:The Betrayed(?), Lore:Falmer Alphabet and Lore:Ice Tribes?), or be rewritten to only talk about the Betrayed.
Content-wise, should we consider all Falmer blinded by the Dwarves to be members of the Betrayed (i.e. the elves who build the Great Statue, the War of the Crag rebels)? They would likely be nearly identical to their free brethren bar the blindness, but technically they are the Betrayed. We need to figure out where to draw the line before we attempt to recategorise the history. —Legoless (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2012 (GMT)
I say no to a split simply because there's so little information about the non-corrupted Snow Elves after the death of the Snow King, and a lot of information on separate pages for Snow Elves and Falmer would be the same. If anything, giving the non-corrupted Snow Elves at the Chantry of Auri-El their own subsection of the "History" portion of the text would be best. LoveWaffle (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
A lack of information shouldn't really be an issue (see Lore:Lefthanded Elves for example). If the two groups are distinct enough to be considered a separate race, the split makes perfect sense. If we're going to merge race articles simply because they share a common ancestry, we might as well delete the article and move it to a section on Lore:Aldmer. The difference between the ancient Snow Elves and the weird little goblin creatures they turned into is much greater than, say, the difference between Altmer and Bosmer. Besides, the "Snow Elves" page won't be lacking in content; it will need to cover the race's ancient history, the incorrect theories for their disappearance, and the survival of the Chantry into the Fourth Era. There may be a bit of overlap between the two pages, but neither should end up being a stub. —Legoless (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
Perhaps I worded myself wrong - it's the overlap that I'm worried about, not so much the lack of information. If a separate page was made for the Snow Elves, the majority of information on the page would also be on the page for the Falmer. Unless a page for the corrupted Snow Elves/Falmer completely drops the issue of their race's early history, the two pages would read virtually the same up to a point, at which the Snow Elf page would have very little to add. Unless I can see pages for the two that are as different as the pages for the Dunmer and Chimer or Aldmer and Altmer, I'll remain opposed as if my opinion actually mattered. There's also the minor issue of what to name the article since "Snow Elf" and "Falmer" are more or less used interchangeably and "the Betrayed" doesn't work since it's not how they refer to themselves or in wide use, but I suppose a simple "If you're looking for _______, see here" would remedy that. -LoveWaffle (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
A page for the Betrayed wouldn't necessarily have detailed info on their earlier history. Anything before their enslavement wouldn't really be relevant. I'm sure the articles will be sandboxed before launch, so you can have a look then and see if they're distinct enough. Article names might be a slight issue, but we can decide on them when we come to it. —Legoless (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
The history of the Snow Elves continues alongside the Falmer. Consider Arch-Curate Vyrthur and Knight-Paladin Gelebor who are alive in Skyrim. I agree with splitting btw. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:52, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
Considering Rieklings, we may end up having a 3-way split. Little is known about them outside of Bloodmoon, but the upcoming Dragonborn expansion is likely to give us some more background. Are they really related to the Falmer? Or just some form of Goblins? We don't know yet. I would definitely say given what we know from Dawnguard that Snow Elves should be its own article, and I might say the same for Rieklings in the near future. TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2012 (GMT)
Rieklings are definitely a distinct creature (as are Wispmothers), but I don't think they actually need a whole article (yet). The current bestiary entry should be sufficient, at least for the Bloodmoon lore. Mentioning them on this article doesn't hurt, but we might eventually want to thin down the gallery by removing unrelated creature images. —Legoless (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

() I don't think it's worth splitting this page. All falmer are still falmer who are still snow elves. I do agree, however, that we do need to better differentiate the civilized and uncivilized falmer. 63.230.250.207 02:07, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

I support the split. Falmer is an archaic term that no longer is used to describe the civilized Snow Elves. Various in-game books reflect this fact and DG strengthens it. We have enough lore about the Snow Elves to constitute a decent article--Jimeee (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2013 (GMT)
There's one in-game piece of information that suggests the falmer and the snow elves are distinct races: soul trapping. Falmer do not have black souls; they have beast souls, from lesser to grand in size. Meanwhile, altmer, dunmer and bosmer have black souls. The only snow elf in Skyrim is Gelebor, who is essential and thus can't be soul trapped, but every known member of a civilized race in Elder Scrolls has a black soul. --Morrolan (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (GMT)
I also support the split per Jimeee. --Ad intellige (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2013 (GMT)
That is a game mechanics limitation Morrolan, rather than a lore distinction. Due to their position in the games, Falmer needed to be treated and monsters, rather than as enemy NPCs. Precluded having to record dialogue for them. I don't think that is reason enough to split them in the Lore section. I support the split though, much as Chimer and Dunmer are two different articles, so should falmer and snow elves. Jeancey (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2013 (GMT)
Game mechanics are (to some extent) derived from lore, and the black soul/beast soul distinction is pretty well-founded as being the distinction between civilized races and monsters. Still, there's a counterargument, which is that falmer may be the original name of the race of snow elves; all the other elf races have -mer endings (altmer, bosmer, dunmer, dwemer) and the Eyes of the Falmer are clearly part of a statue constructed by the civilized race. Gelebor indicates that he hopes the falmer that appear in Skyrim may one day be restored to their prior form, although he also clearly does not know whether that restoration is possible. So if there is a split, there needs to be a clear link between the two pages. --Morrolan (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

Falmer Development and other notable historic events and 'facts'[edit]

I am curious as to why it is asserted (when it is very clear in the lore and also in real-life historical analysis that outright statements by third-party sources can be completely wrong) that it was the Dwemer that force fed the refugee Snow Elves toxic fungi. M'aiq does allude to the reason why the Falmer became blind and his statements are often ironic in nature. Furthermore, there is within the history of the Dwemer evidence of conflagartion and altering of the facts. It could be likely that the Nords are merely covering up their own oppression of the Snow Elves and subsequently the Falmer during the times of the presence of the Dwemer - this 'War of the Crag' may be a misunderstanding of the ages old conflict between the Dwemer, the Snow Elves and the Nords (especially if we take the Night of Tears into account, why would you stop when they flee?). The disappearance of the Dwemer may have forced the Falmer, due to a lack of proper access to their technology, into this situation. But that's a hypothesis and I'm guessing that this is not an academic discussion website on Elder Scrolls but a compilation of what's in the games. 86.18.161.52 14:18, 13 October 2014 (GMT)

The reason why it is said the Dwemer fed them the toxins is one of the remaining snow elves actually said it in the Dawnguard expansion for Skyrim. I think. I could be wrong, so please don't quote me :) ~ Ad intellige (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
Yes, Knight-Paladin Gelebor says: "We had always maintained an uneasy alliance with the underground-dwelling dwarves, and when faced with extinction we turned to them for help. Surprisingly, they agreed to protect us but demanded a terrible price... the blinding of our race." I think that's the best possible first-party statement we're ever going to get. That, plus The Falmer: A Study makes it pretty unambiguous that it was the Dwemer's doing, and there's not really any other sources that controvert that. -- Hargrimm(T) 16:15, 13 October 2014 (GMT)

Bias[edit]

I've noticed significant bias against the Falmer in this article. I don't object to making it clear that many people in Tamriel think the Falmer are monsters, but I do think it is rather despicable to simply accept and project that view here. The Falmer do not, in fact, display behavior any more aggressive, 'corrupted,' 'primitive,' or 'twisted' than the Nords who conquered them - in contrast to the Nords, the Falmer have not invaded a nation and committed genocide on its people. The Falmer have slaves, and the Nords enslaved their ancestors to build Windhelm. So the Falmer live underground, sometimes in caves - the Dwemer and Dunmer did/do the same. So the Falmer raise scary insects - so do the Dunmer. So the Falmer butchered their kin at the Chantry of Auri-El - this is monstrous to no greater extent than some of the Ayleid infighting, or wars among the Dwemer/Chimer.

It's easy to be taken in by all the vilification the Falmer get, but we have to actually consider the facts of what they have done, how they live, and how it compares to other races still considered to be people. For a blatant example of how wrongheaded this bias is, look at the Forsworn article. The Forsworn are comparable to the Falmer in many ways, as marginalized people who attack outsiders and want to reclaim their home, and yet that article displays no similar bias. Hell, the Forsworn actually consort with Hagravens, desecrate shrines and live surrounded by gore, and replace their own hearts with briar hearts - but the Forsworn article only refers to this as a 'bizarre ritual,' not 'twisted' or 'corrupted.' There is no evidence that the Falmer do anything as 'evil' as the Forsworn, and yet you think the Falmer are monsters who hate everything and the Forsworn are people trying to make a home for themselves and gain independence. The major differences between the Falmer and the Forsworn are that the Falmer don't do that messed up shit and the Forsworn aren't ugly. You can't decide that people are monsters just because they're ugly.

The article needs to be changed to remove this bias.

Dinmenel (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2015 (GMT)

Lore articles are supposed to be written from the perspective of a citizen of Tamriel. To describe the Falmer as anything other than "twisted monsters" (source, source) would go directly against every shred of evidence we have. The Falmer indiscriminately kill anyone they come across due to a deeply-ingrained hatred that permeates their psyche, and they regularly mount raids on the surface world (source). This is not a "bias". You can't blame Nordic racism, especially when a significant part of our knowledge of the Falmer comes directly from the mouth of Knight-Paladin Gelebor, an actual Snow Elf. Not only does he call them corrupted, he also explains that they have lost their intellect. And let's not forget these guys. The wording of your proposed changes, in my opinion, is an entirely forced view which doesn't exist in the TES universe and isn't a true representation of the subject. —Legoless (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2015 (GMT)
I think your initial concern was entirely justified. However, I think a few of your changes were over-corrections, that's all. What Gelebor thought of the Falmer, for example, is not speculative; it's take from his game dialogue. It's a question of conveying the developer's intent. I like Lego's term "fictional neutrality" to describe this. That Forsworn article you're holding up as an example doesn't ignore the fact that they are often considered crazy. Thus, the only issue in principle with describing them as "twisted" is that it may be an oversimplification. But the answer is not to ignore it altogether. The problem with the page was that it was too brief. It was trying to paraphrase too much. The answer is to go into greater detail in an Appearance section in order to describe them more accurately, rather than avoid describing them. The language can be tailored to speak of how they are perceived, rather than how they are, and avoid overstating the sources. But it's still ultimately going to convey a negative understanding of the Falmer to readers, because that's the understanding conveyed by the game.
On a related note: I think "malformed" might be a better descriptive term for them than devolved, corrupted, twisted, etc., although I think "corrupted" may still have a place or two on the page somewhere. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 22:08, 27 March 2015 (GMT)
Also, we can't ignore the fact that the Falmer devolved in such a way that their souls became white, which indicates that they became lesser creatures over the years. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 01:20, 28 March 2015 (GMT)
The only reason I support some changes to the article is that the word corrupted has been over used. I think we can be a little more varied with our vocabulary, but in all, the article accurately reflects what the average Tamrielian feels about the Falmer, which is exactly what our goal is, as per Legoless. Jeancey (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2015 (GMT)
I wasn't aware that the articles are meant to be from the perspective of a 'citizen of Tamriel.' In most cases that comes out all right because we have lots of sources from all sides to balance each other out. In this case, all the sources are biased against the Falmer. Gelebor especially - the Falmer killed his kin at the Chantry and he lived side by side with the evidence of that trauma for thousands of years. Again, the Forsworn indiscriminately kill or capture all outsiders as well - but somehow they're not described as monsters. The hatred of the Falmer certainly makes sense, but Gelebor can't know their innermost psyches. As for their intellect, he is clearly wrong; their intellect is evidenced, among many other things, by their ability to master Dwemer animunculi (Shimmermist Cave). Your goal may be to convey what the average Tamrielian or a very well researched and well informed citizen thinks of the Falmer, but that falls short of giving your readers the full story. Flawed goal.
Anyway, I certainly don't want to ignore that people in Tamriel think this way, but I would like to tailor the language 'to speak of how they are perceived, rather than how they are, and avoid overstating the sources.' Like the Forsworn article; that does a good job. --Dinmenel (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Gelebor didn't just brood that entire time. If you read his dialogue, you'll see he's studied them closely and in fact wishes to reconcile/communicate with them. He has also noticed a "rise" in their intellect over the years. As for Shimmermist Cave, the lack of combat between the Falmer and the animunculi there goes unexplained in-game. You can't really compare the Falmer to the Forsworn faction either. The Forsworn might be murderous savages, but they're just a separatist movement that cling to ancient barbaric rituals. The modern Falmer psyche is one of utter hatred and contempt for everything Other, as can be corroborated by the unbiased loading screen I linked above. That isn't an overstatement of sources, it's a fair interpretation of one. That is to say, it is "how they are", and discounting personal inferences there's no evidence to the contrary. —Legoless (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Gelebor would rather call himself a 'snow elf' than use the same word - the word from his own language - that people use for his 'corrupted' kin; his sympathy rings false. The Falmer have dwellings directly adjacent to the centurion's docking station and the table there is littered with Falmer paraphernalia and Dwemer cogs/gears both; the implication that they have somehow managed to reprogram the centurion is extremely clear. There's also the fact that they knew how to deactivate the animunculi in Nchuand-Zel - at least, that's how I always read the fact that the Falmer are said to be returning to the ruin after the incursion of the expedition scared them off, and that the defenses were inactive when the researchers arrived. There aren't any other ruins left defenseless like that, and surely it would have been explored by the residents of Markarth if the defenses had been inactive since the Dwemer's disappearance. One wonders when Nord intellect will 'rise' so high as to learn to govern Dwemer tech as the Falmer have. Aside from that, the Falmer clearly have a developed culture with knowledge of crafting, animal husbandry, smithing (equivalent to steel if in-game stats are anything to go by), religion (implied by the existence of Falmer shamans), simple mechanics/physics (building of traps), alchemy, and magic. They're even able to raise babies captured from the surface such that they attack the player. If the Falmer were so fundamentally different from the other races, surely these people would just be happy you were there to free them from the monsters.
You really can compare the Falmer to the Forsworn; they are both marginalized peoples who are aggressive to outsiders and want to reclaim what they see as their land. Again, where they diverge is that we never see the Falmer do anything as 'monstrous' as the Forsworn's Briarheart rituals, desecration of divine shrines, and general association with Hagravens. It boggles the mind that this is just 'clinging to ancient barbaric rituals,' but somehow the Falmer are twisted and evil. Unless TES suddenly incorporates an objective morality system, the loading screen is by definition, in using the word 'evil,' a subjective point. Probably made to represent the attitude of most people in Skyrim to the player, though there was definitely a developer initiative to demonize the Falmer - balanced out in places, often subtle design choices such as Nchuand-Zel and Shimmermist Cave, by other devs who clearly wanted to give them more humanity. I certainly do think the Falmer have hatred for non-Falmer, but I don't think the hate of an oppressed people for their oppressors makes them any less people. The evidence of their intellect and culture is everywhere, but you choose to ignore the physical evidence, what the Falmer actually do and display - the facts - in favor of taking the opinion of in-universe individuals as absolute truth. Everything points to their personhood. — Unsigned comment by Dinmenel (talkcontribs) at 00:08 on 31 March 2015‎

() Everything you just described falls under original research. It is the synthesis of observed game mechanics. All of the text that we have from the game indicates that the people of Tamriel believe the Falmer to be evil, corrupted creatures. Whatever your opinion of the matter is, that's what the average citizen of Tamriel believes, and thus that is what must be portrayed in the lore section until a book or dialogue in-game indicates otherwise. Observing behavior in-game in the lore section is iffy at best, and is often subjective in nature. Nothing in the game mechanics definitively supplants the vast amount of textual evidence we have to the opposite, and combining physical evidence from the game into a new narrative is simply not acceptable under our current lore guidelines. I'm not sure how much more blunt I can be. No matter what sort of argument you make, it simply is against our guidelines, and unless those change, the views of the average Tamriel citizen, no matter how discriminatory they may be, are what needs to be in the article. Jeancey (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2015 (GMT)

Yeah, this article is lacking neutrality to the point of inaccuracy. It really ought to be rephrased to reflect a more objective tone, i.e. swapping out words like "corrupted", "lifeless eyes", "ugly" etc. for less negatively biased language unless they are part of a direct quote. As is the tone of the article seems unprofessionally reactionary/emotional. There's some other issues with the article too, for example the source link for their "stench" leads to a poem that doesn't substantiate the claim. 99.236.227.236 02:10, 7 April 2015 (GMT)
Someone will get around to it eventually. Most if not all of these terms are derived from in-game sources. It's the sources themselves which are not being "objective". And this is not just characters in-game saying these things. For example, here's a loading screen, which is essentially a message straight from Bethesda to the player, free from in-game bias: "The Falmer are twisted, evil creatures that dwell in Skyrim's deepest reaches." We'll try to retool the page and make it a bit less inflammatory, but as I said above, it will not ultimately paint the Falmer in a better light, because that's simply not the truth of the matter. For all our intents and purposes here, God declared that the Falmer are twisted. We can soften that blow, but it's still going to land. We can clutter the page with a lot of conditional phrasing, but we know that the developers intended for the Falmer to be unpleasant-looking monsters, so we're obliged to portray them that way unless and until we receive more information. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 03:41, 7 April 2015 (GMT)
"No matter what sort of argument you make, it simply is against our guidelines" That guideline is not even enforced the same way in other lore articles, though. Two examples I've run across just browsing the wiki over the last few days: the Dwemer article mentions the ash piles found in Bamz-Amschend and draws conclusions from that fact. The Black Books article mentions gameplay mechanics that aren't corroborated in textual sources. That information belongs in those articles; they are basic facts of 'what is in Tamriel and what does it look like.' Not every detail of the games is true in lore, but the general facts - like 'there were ash piles in Bamz-Amschend'/'tentacles pull you to Apocrypha through Black Books' - certainly are. Drawing self-evident conclusions from those facts - like 'the Dwemer seem to have turned to ash' - is not original research. In the same way, seeing that the Falmer have so many artifacts characteristic of people and concluding 'hmm, they're probably people, not monsters' is self-evident, not original research. The devs are not monolithic - sure, there's the loading screen, but they also chose to give the Falmer so much blatant evidence of personhood. That they are also an oppressed people is simply true by definition based on their history, but I'll be happy if the language of the article is made more neutral to accurately reflect the range of dev intent. - Dinmenel (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (GMT)
I think that your comparison of the Falmer to the Forsworn isn't very correct and is biased itself (maybe for only rhetoric reasons, but still). The Forsworn are people who behave like monsters in some ways, when the Falmer are monsters who behave like people in some ways. It would be more correct to compare them to goblins (which are described as "violent, primitive humanoids"). 213.138.81.235 11:34, 15 April 2015 (GMT)

Religion of the Falmer?[edit]

The snow elves, well still falmer, but before they were corrupted worshiped the normal elve pantheneon. But did the corrupted seems like it has more comparsions with the forsworn in terms of how soceity is structured, they don't seem to stick to any form of religious beliefs and looks like some kind of Animistic structure from a non-elaborated guess. Theres alot of things that looks like it could be a religious shrines but nothing really comes to me. Anyone know anything? — Unsigned comment by 67.149.255.215 (talk) at 04:57 on 4 May 2015

I don't think there is anything stated in the games, no. Jeancey (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2015 (GMT)